P
pnewton
Guest
Nor does it say in all.
- Status
O
OraLabora
Guest
It isn’t that difficult. I had zero musical notions when I started. I was taught by a master, perhaps the finest in Canada (choirmaster at Saint-Benoît-du-Lac abbey in Quebec, our first choirmaster), and sure that helps but since then we’ve had some newcomers to the choir and they manage to catch on just fine. I find chant notation much easier to read than regular music notation. We’re a small choir of men of various backgrounds and we manage very well and our former choirmaster often chided the monks for not chanting as well as we did. I think he was just being nice to us, but that said we have received many compliments.
It just, like anything else worthwhile pursuing in life, takes practice. If you don’t have a master to teach you, try chanting along with a Solesmes recording with the chant notation. There are many other tricks that are useful like reading the Latin through first without chanting it, making sure you accentuate in the right places, that I won’t get into here, but suffices to say they aren’t insurmountable.
We do sing a cappella. We used to have organ accompaniment but we got rid of it and it made us better disciplined.
We for sure won’t win any prizes but we do a good job and parishes seem to appreciate us.
BTW it’s not “all rambling notes”. There are distinctive “modes”, and many formulae and melodies that come back again and again. The Mode V graduals are a good example as are many of the antiphons for the Divine Office in their various modes; try to convince me that the Vespers hymn for these days, “Veni Creator Spiritus” or the Salve Regina, are not melodic! There is also a super-melody called “arsis-thesis” on the more melismatic chants, where the notes all rise to a crescendo before settling down to a gentle deposition. Get that right and the chant transports you to heaven! Also keep in mind that chant is less about the music and more about the word, and bringing out the mood and spirit of the biblical or psalm verse that forms the object of the chant.
It really is not impossible for a good musician to learn. Even for a non-musician for that matter. I can appreciate that Gregorian chant doesn’t agree with your personal aesthetic but please, your post is so full of misinformation and misconceptions about chant…
C
Canto
Guest
If it didn’t mean all, wouldn’t it then specifiy? Like for example say ‘should be given pride of place in the Dioscean Cathedral and churches where the faitful are capable.’
Vat II 118. Religious singing by the people is to be intelligently fostered
all the people or some of them? It doesn’t say all. etc, etc, etc.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I suppose they expect people to use some judgement about where it might not be a good idea of feasible. Nothing can cover every instance.
P
ProVobis
Guest
C
Canto
Guest
Popes before and after the council have constantly called for the people to start singing the Mass.
If a parish can sing Here I am Lord with its dotted crotchets (1 and a 1/2 beat notes) or On Eagles Wings with it’s quaver rests (1/4 beat rests) and harder rhythm, then they should have no problems singing Jubilate Deo’s Sanctus for example.
P
pnewton
Guest
If it meant each, wouldn’t it specify?
Either way you go, it is an argument from silence, a poor arguement. Like I said, I just read it literally.
C
Canto
Guest
It says p.o.p. in liturgical services.
If a parish does not give GC first place, is the parish literally doing what the Council said?
The US Bishops interpret the council as meaning all.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Sing to the Lord
- The Second Vatican Council directed that the faithful be able to sing parts of the Ordinary of the Mass together in Latin. In many worshiping communities in the United States, fulfilling this directive will mean introducing Latin chant to worshipers who perhaps have not sung it before. While prudence, pastoral sensitivity, and reasonable time for progress are encouraged to achieve this end, every effort in this regard is laudable and highly encouraged.
- Each worshiping community in the United States, including all age groups and all ethnic groups, should, at a minimum, learn Kyrie XVI, Sanctus XVIII, and Agnus Dei XVIII, all of which are typically included in congregational worship aids. More difficult chants, such as Gloria VIII and settings of the Credo and Pater Noster, might be learned after the easier chants have been mastered.
"Hence it is that those who are trying to improve the quality of congregational singing **cannot **refuse Gregorian chant the place which is due to it”
“Would you therefore, in collaboration with the competent diocesan and national agencies for the liturgy, sacred music and catechetics, decide on the best ways of** teaching the faithful the Latin chants **of Jubilate Deo and of having them sing them…. You will thus be performing a new service for the Church in the domain of liturgical renewal”
Sacramentum Caritas - Pope Benedict
- “I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy”
“40 In the choosing of the parts actually to be sung, however, preference should be given to those that are of greater importance and especially to those to be sung by the priest or the deacon or the lector, with the people responding, or by the priest and people together.”
There are approved Gregorian melodies, English and Latin, for the above. The so called four hymn sandwhich is the very last option musically
- All other things being equal, **Gregorian chant holds pride of place **because it is proper to the Roman Liturgy. Other types of sacred music, in particular polyphony, are in no way excluded, provided that they correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and that they foster the participation of all the faithful.
124 Once the Entrance chant is concluded, the priest and faithful, all standing, make the Sign of the Cross. The priest says: In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti (In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit).
- It is not permitted to substitute other chants for those found in the Order of Mass, such as at the Agnus Dei.
P
ProVobis
Guest
This would be great to see more of too.
O
otjm
Guest
I think you understand incorrectly.
AB Levada got the EFgoing at St Birgitta’s. He certainly did not seem to make any effort to get it going elsewhere; it came across more as a sop to take the steam and starch out of those who were requesting it. I live south of Portland, and because of driving freeway most of the way, it is probably about the same driving time to get there as someone within the city limits - 40 to 45 minutes. It simply is not readily available to most.
AB George didn’t make any great waves either, but then he was only here what - 11 months?
AB Vlazny actually has several EF Masses in the archdiocese; I believe there is one in Salem and one in Eugene, although I am not sure either of them are regular as in every week. He spoke honestly, and having met all too many priests older than myself, who were ordained prior to Vatican 2, the feeling seems to be very consistent; little or no desire. If there is any consistent effort to increase the number of EF Masses, I am not aware of it.
As to general comments: I have read more than once that Gregorian Chant was less than wildly or widely popular before Vatican 2, and it has come pretty close to non-existent since then. Again, I have seen the comments that the instruction in the Document giving chant pride of place was an attempt to revive chant; and the results since then are that it hasn’t revivied.
What will come no one knows. Whether 10, 20, or 50 years from now we will see greater use of chant is pure speculation. We have plain chant for the Psalms; and possibly in the future chant for the Gloria, etc. Or it may continue to lapse. About once a month I go to the local Trappist Abbey, and they do plain chant, but given the aging of their community, it is nowhere as good as it was 30 years ago. And so it goes.
C
Cat
Guest
VociMike, I feel judged everytime someone condemns OCP hymns as “banal” or “pablum” because these are the songs that our parish sings and therefore, these are the songs that I play.Heck, I totally agree. I totally agree that for whatever reasons, most parishes are not doing what the Council Fathers and subsequent popes have asked for.
And where else would it be? Cathedrals only? Then why did the Council state that “It is desirable also that an edition be prepared containing simpler melodies, for use in small churches”?
It would be interesting to see you try and support that claim.
Yes, “especially polyphony”. I could start another thread if you like.
Cat, is somebody judging you here?
Actually, we are about half and half with traditional hymns (e.g., Crown Him With Many Crowns, Holy God We Praise Thy Name, etc.) I consider these hymns Protestant, because we sang all of them in all the various evangelical churches that I was part of. Most of the traditional hymns that we use come out of the German tradition, and have a very “marchy” “German” flavor. I like them! But they are hardly “reverent.” I would say “stadium” hymns, or “crusade” hymns. Again, I like them and I play them lively, the way they’re supposed to be played.
Mass parts are Creation or one of the other more modern settings.
The only time our parish does Latin is when there is Benediction. We have a 24/7 Adoration Chapel, so there isn’t Benediction very often, just once a week during the Family Rosary on Thursday nights. We have constant access to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament–it’s wonderful.
The reason I feel judged is that from the way many posters talk, they would condemn the music at my parish, not only the hymns, but the fact that I play only piano, no organ. (That’s ANOTHER thread–organ vs. all other instruments!)
That makes me feel bad, like church trash.
**I don’t think that we should speak disparagingly of any parish that is doing things correctly. Although the Church would like us to give “pride of place” to Gregorian Chant, this is not yet a requirement, and those parishes that use hymns (traditional or contemporary) are not doing anything wrong, and therefore, IMO, it seems uncharitable to criticize the priests who are doing things by the rubrics. **
VociMike, when a parish’s music is criticized, the implication is that the priests and the musicians are at fault. After all, music doesn’t just happen. People make music happen. When someone calls music “banal,” what I hear is that I am banal, or my priests are banal. And I find that hurtful.
I honestly, truly love many of the OCP hymns, both traditional and modern, and I think a lot of other Catholics like them, too. When I visited Marytown, a Franciscan shrine, near Chicago, the muzak was a mix of the various OCP hymns, and the music in the Mass was OCP hymns. I was surprised at this, as I thought I would hear chant and ancient music, but this was not the case. Would any of you be willing to call the Franciscan friars “banal?” These men do amazing things in the Chicago area, including work towards the establishment of more 24/7 Adoration chapels. They write some wonderful, pithy essays. I admire them and look up to them.
So even if people aren’t directly condemning me or juding me, I feel that they are indirectly judging me when they make colorful comments about the music that is used in my parish (and indeed, in most parishes in my city other than the TLM parish.)
If someone wants to say, “My personal preference is…” or “in my opinion, the music is…” that’s different. I’ve said over and over again that I personally dislike chant. But that’s a lot different than saying that I don’t think it should be part of Mass. We should not criticize what the Church has said is acceptable. Gregorian chant has pride of place, but OCP hymns are still acceptable for use in Masses at this point in history.
P
ProVobis
Guest
But it’s okay to criticize or ignore what Vatican II urged? It seems most ironic that in Rome a certain splinter group/order is fighting for full reinstatement of its faculties and yet they’ve always have been more receptive to what Vatican II recommended than do most Catholic parishes. Perhaps when they get reinstated maybe we’ll hear more Latin, more Gregorian chant, more pipe organs, more organists, etc. because, nothing personal intended, but most of what we hear from you, Cat, are excuses. And excuses (and continuing to do what seems to be popular) don’t seem to be making us more in compliance with Vatican II.
C
Canto
Guest
We should not speak disparagingly but we should correct error.
Doing things by the ruberics? The GIRM says the chants, and they are officially called chants, for the Entrance, Offertory and Communion are the last option and the texts must be approved like the 2 Latin Graduals and the Missal in Latin or approved translation. Has any Bishops conference approved the hymns in OCP hymnals with Vatican recognitio?
G-Chant not a requierment? The Council said it should be given first place not last place or no place and that we should know our bits of the Mass in Latin. This seems like a requirement. The U.S. Bishops have said that each worshiping community in the U.S., including all age groups and all ethnic groups, should know some of the basic gregorian chants of the Mass in Latin.
Is there a tradition of singing hymns at Mass instead of the propers
O
OraLabora
Guest
Yes that is very true, but traditionally Gregorian chant was made to be sung a cappella. Some light organ to accompany chant is acceptable for those who require it, but the ideal is to sing it a cappella. That does not mean that the organ should not be used at all. It just shouldn’t be used to accompany the chanting provided that the schola is sufficiently skilled. At our abbey, the organ is played for 10 minutes before Mass begins; the introit is sung a cappella, as is the gradual and gospel acclamation, the kyriale (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Agnus), and the offertory. Then after the offertory hymn, the organist plays an offertory piece. Finally the communion antiphon is again chanted a cappella, and lastly, an exit piece is played on the organ, a longer piece that will last maybe 5-10 minutes after the exit procession of the monks. It is all very, very reverential. And this is an OF Mass, proving that there’s nothing wrong with the Mass per se, it’s the execution of same that lacks in most cases.
The abbey used to use the organ to accompany the chant but discontinued about 5 or 6 years ago when the choirmaster changed. Our choirmaster, incidentally, a monk originally from our abbey, was choirmaster at Solesmes for a few years. So he knows his stuff! He removed the organ accompaniment except for the psalmody of the Divine Office, and the result was brilliant.
So the two are meant to compliment each other, but not necessarily at the same time!
For starters in a parish that does not use chant, I would recommend a simple kyriale consisting of Kyrie XVI, Gloria VIII (de Angelis), Sanctus and Agnus XVIII (from the Mass of the Dead). They are all extremely simple and easy to learn and very nice. Gloria VIII isn’t strictly speak “Gregorian” chant, but it is well-known and easy to learn and can be skill-building for some of the other Glorias.
There’s no need to dive in head first with complicated introits, graduals, offertories and communion antiphons. That can come later, starting with some simpler ones like Laetetur Cor (introit) for Weeks 4 and 30 of OT, or “Omnes Gentes” (introit) for week 13; or on Nov. 2, the introit Requiem Aeternam is easy enough; or for communion, there are a number of antiphons with relatively simple melodies.
V
VociMike
Guest
Cat, do you understand that then entire concept of the 4-hymn Mass is the least acceptable form of ligurgical music, since it involves singing at Mass rather than singing the Mass? Musicam Sacram makes this clear.
Pope Benedict XVI also made the clear statement that when it comes to ligurgical music, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. This is really only common sense. There is a hierarchy of best-good-ok-poor in liturgical music (as there is in any human endeavor), and most parishes are spending the vast majority of their time in ok-poor territory and making little or no attempt to move into best-good territory. They are giving God and their people the very least possible. Why is that OK?
Pope Benedict XVI also made the clear statement that when it comes to ligurgical music, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. This is really only common sense. There is a hierarchy of best-good-ok-poor in liturgical music (as there is in any human endeavor), and most parishes are spending the vast majority of their time in ok-poor territory and making little or no attempt to move into best-good territory. They are giving God and their people the very least possible. Why is that OK?
O
OraLabora
Guest
This is a good point. If you look at the Graduale Romanum, each antiphon is selected in function of the Mass that is being sung, and harmonizes with the readings for the most part.
Any time I’ve been to a parish they seem to throw any hymn out there. Some effort is made to be appropriate for the liturgical season, but for example at the 5th Sunday of Lent, the communion antiphon is “Videns Dominus flentes” when the Gospel story of Lazarus is read, and “Nemo te condemnavit” for the Gospel story of the adulteress. It took the monks of Solesmes a monumental effort to adapt the ancient antiphons to the reformed Mass after Vatican II. Just throwing any Lenten modern hymn up there instead does nothing to preserve the coherence of the Mass as an organic whole, unlike the Graduale.
C
Cat
Guest
Yes, I understand it.
It’s OK because the Church allows it. If they did not allow it, i.e., if Churches who used hymns were not allowed to exist, there would be very few Catholic churches in the U.S., at least in this part of the country (Northern Illinois/Southern Wisconsin).
So what is your action plan for changing it? Step 1 is…? Step 2 is…? etc.
V
VociMike
Guest
I said it was OK. But it’s not the best that we should be offering to God or his people. The Church makes that clear. “Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another.” So why do people not want to offer the best to God and to their fellow Catholics? That is the fundamental, burning question.
Step 1: badger people on CAF.
Step 2: actually, I have a few small things in the works.
B
Brendan
Guest
The Church ‘allows’ the reception of both species. Of course this means the added expense of more chalices, the training of more Extraordinary Ministers, the additional work on behalf of the clergy to purify these additional vessesls.
But think of how many parishes made that expense and effort. And Why? Because the Church says that it is a fuller sign.
And likewise, chanting the graduals is the fuller sign of the Mass, because the faithful are actually SIGNING the Mass itself.
So it would therefore stand to reason that if a parish is willing to make the investment to offer fuller signs to the faithful (instead of the minimum ‘allowed’ by the Church), it would include chanted graduals…correct?
V
VociMike
Guest
Masses without any music at all are also “OK” with the Church. So why not save all that money by not paying musicians and buying music books for the pews? Masses without music are not the ideal, but they are “OK,” and think of all the money that could be used for other things.
- Status